The Allanak Problem

[triste]

Quit OOCing in the middle of a scene is a bit extreme and unfair to the other players involved. As others have mentioned, story continuity is important. I would recommend requesting a fade or similar first to at least wrap up the scene so that the ultimate outcome can be understood. Then you can quit OOC.

Generally speaking pulling a Poochie isn't good form
https://youtu.be/J5k8ZQsZJpk

[Maso]

That's a gross misrepresentation. Gemming is a form of mutilation. I have endured many hardships on my characters and came back from super low lows and those were great stories to tell. Playing a gemmed simply does not appeal to me and I'd rather spend my free time doing something enjoyable i.e. not playing a gemmed.

I don't think their point was that you should let your character be gemmed, just that it's bad form to quit OOC in the middle of a scene and store.. rather you should play out and go for the 'be killed' option over being gemmed. OR.. if your character would rather not die.. take the gem and then store.

But also I think you were probably being hyperbolic and I don't think you would actually quit OOC in the middle of a scene. :p

[Dar]

The templar says, giving you the gem, "Put this on."
The scared gicker yells, tossing the gem towards %templar face, "What? No! no! No! This. No! I'm not. I cant. No. You will not Leash me! Never!"
The tempalr says, waving the half giant over, "Alright then."
The Half Giant Decapitates the scared gicker.

vs.

The templar says, giving you the gem, "Put this On."
The Scared Gicker says OOC, "I do not want to play a gemmed."
The Scared Gicker leaves Armageddon.
The templar blinkity blinks, uncertain how to proceed with the story.

The end result is the same. But former way of playing is staying in character and continuing the story and latter version is just big meh.

[HavokBlue]

In other roleplaying environments it is sometimes standard practice to get out-of-character affirmative consent before doing anything bad at all to another player character or dramatically changing the circumstances of that player's narrative. I understand the appeal of that and have implemented aspects of this at times in my tabletop game sessions.

Armageddon is not those games. If your character is in an inescapable IC-situation that would lead to a grievous change in circumstances (dismemberment, Gemming, enslavement, etc) I understand how much that can suck as a player but a part of this game is embracing our failures as much as our successes.

Don't conflate being asked to resolve an IC situation in-character instead of unceremoniously mashing the quit OOC command with being forced to play a character you not longer wish to play.

[Hestia]

In other roleplaying environments it is sometimes standard practice to get out-of-character affirmative consent before doing anything bad at all to another player character or dramatically changing the circumstances of that player's narrative. I understand the appeal of that and have implemented aspects of this at times in my tabletop game sessions.

Armageddon is not those games. If your character is in an inescapable IC-situation that would lead to a grievous change in circumstances (dismemberment, Gemming, enslavement, etc) I understand how much that can suck as a player but a part of this game is embracing our failures as much as our successes.

Don't conflate being asked to resolve an IC situation in-character instead of unceremoniously mashing the quit OOC command with being forced to play a character you not longer wish to play.

Enslavement is not really a thing for PCs anymore, though if a templar wanted to order a criminal to join the Byn for a year, that kind of indentured servitude would be fine. In the case of dismemberment, "consent to torture" is required with the option for the victim to choose death rather than dismemberment.

[Jihelu]

In other roleplaying environments it is sometimes standard practice to get out-of-character affirmative consent before doing anything bad at all to another player character or dramatically changing the circumstances of that player's narrative. I understand the appeal of that and have implemented aspects of this at times in my tabletop game sessions.

Armageddon is not those games. If your character is in an inescapable IC-situation that would lead to a grievous change in circumstances (dismemberment, Gemming, enslavement, etc) I understand how much that can suck as a player but a part of this game is embracing our failures as much as our successes.

Don't conflate being asked to resolve an IC situation in-character instead of unceremoniously mashing the quit OOC command with being forced to play a character you not longer wish to play.

Enslavement is not really a thing for PCs anymore, though if a templar wanted to order a criminal to join the Byn for a year, that kind of indentured servitude would be fine. In the case of dismemberment, "consent to torture" is required with the option for the victim to choose death rather than dismemberment.

Could a Templar not force someone into the military for a bit?

[sleepyhead]

My first character ever got conscripted into AoD but I think the whole conscript thing got done away with.

[Dar]

One of my big regrets in the game. My second PC in the game. Maybe 3 hrs played. A templar walks in and looks at me. Tosses a militia dustcloak at me and promotes me to private. Tells me to report in next before they set out.

I couldnt log in the next day.

Three days later, the entire AoD clan and the templar are dead. I. 'The' only AoD in Allanak and I have the power to arrest. On my second character in the game, with less then 10 hours played. Closest to survivor guilt that Ive ever came across.

[Krath]

Enslavement is not really a thing for PCs anymore, though if a templar wanted to order a criminal to join the Byn for a year, that kind of indentured servitude would be fine. In the case of dismemberment, "consent to torture" is required with the option for the victim to choose death rather than dismemberment.

So based on this comment, does this mean gemmed are NOT slaves and should be treated as such?

[Jihelu]

Enslavement is not really a thing for PCs anymore, though if a templar wanted to order a criminal to join the Byn for a year, that kind of indentured servitude would be fine. In the case of dismemberment, "consent to torture" is required with the option for the victim to choose death rather than dismemberment.

So based on this comment, does this mean gemmed are NOT slaves and should be treated as such?

Slave is generally a legal status that has tangible effects.
Can't own property, have money, can be legally sold by a master

Gemmed don't really have any of this going on. Anything a Templar tells a gemmed is something they could presumably tell someone of the same status that's ungemmed.
It's just there's no point in forcing Tribal who-the-fuck-ever to go scout an area out for you because he'll die, the wind mage will live.
I've never thought they were 'slaves'.

[Gentleboy]

Let's get real with gemmed.

Don't get caught. Gicks are meant to be hard to play. They are meant to be a role that is lonely and frustrating and in the North, killed. You got caught, you get gemmed. Don't like it, don't get caught. It is very difficult to play a gick in the city as a city folk, but I know a lot of Bynners and such who manifest after years of hiding it. Kudos to all of you. But, you should know the risk.

Anywhere else in the world, gicks are killed. Most tribals do not like them. The North certainly doesn't like them. The only place a magicker can openly be themselves is Allanak. They have a place to stay, an opportunity for an apartment, and /some/ protection.

However, never have I seen a gemmed treated like a slave per say. If anything, in the years I've been playing, I've seen some uppity gemmed. Like they think they have a social status or protection. That irks me.

This is all personal opinion and I could totally be overlooking PCs I never met!

I guess if anything, I'd like to see gemmed offered more mundane jobs that aren't all adventure focused. Especially for those that aren't wilderness or fighting classes. OR human.

[Krath]

I don't think there is a question or concern about it being hard for gemmed. It should be hard the 3rd hardest rol, behind sorc and psi. The question is, I'm looking at you staff, Are gemmed to be considered slaves of allanak via RP, or dangerous collared citizens?

[HavokBlue]

In other roleplaying environments it is sometimes standard practice to get out-of-character affirmative consent before doing anything bad at all to another player character or dramatically changing the circumstances of that player's narrative. I understand the appeal of that and have implemented aspects of this at times in my tabletop game sessions.

Armageddon is not those games. If your character is in an inescapable IC-situation that would lead to a grievous change in circumstances (dismemberment, Gemming, enslavement, etc) I understand how much that can suck as a player but a part of this game is embracing our failures as much as our successes.

Don't conflate being asked to resolve an IC situation in-character instead of unceremoniously mashing the quit OOC command with being forced to play a character you not longer wish to play.

Enslavement is not really a thing for PCs anymore, though if a templar wanted to order a criminal to join the Byn for a year, that kind of indentured servitude would be fine. In the case of dismemberment, "consent to torture" is required with the option for the victim to choose death rather than dismemberment.

Thank you for the clarity, it's been a few years since I've had a character going. My recollection from discussing a concept w/ the staff team for a PC that tried to round up other PCs to toss into arena fights was that PC enslavement technically happens sometimes but always results in storage for a variety of (valid) reasons.

And yeah, folks, please check for OOC torture/graphic scene consent before getting into a scene like that. Having spent a few years doing a lot of RP in more controlled environments, I've both come to appreciate the ways Arm lets your character assert their preferred outcome on the narrative in spite of other characters (murder, betrayal, corruption etc), and to recognize more the ways in which that can be less than fun for folks on the receiving end.

[Gentleboy]

I don't think there is a question or concern about it being hard for gemmed. It should be hard the 3rd hardest rol, behind sorc and psi. The question is, I'm looking at you staff, Are gemmed to be considered slaves of allanak via RP, or dangerous collared citizens?

I saw it as collared tools. Like everyone knows that gemmed are tools I thought. But not for common citizens? Like workcrews and up?

[HavokBlue]

I don't think there is a question or concern about it being hard for gemmed. It should be hard the 3rd hardest rol, behind sorc and psi. The question is, I'm looking at you staff, Are gemmed to be considered slaves of allanak via RP, or dangerous collared citizens?

I saw it as collared tools. Like everyone knows that gemmed are tools I thought. But not for common citizens? Like workcrews and up?

Maybe out of character, but per the documentation, what your character likely knows about the Gemmed is that they're only moderately less likely to make your extremities shrivel up and fall off by looking at you funny, that the blood of a Whiran cures scrub cough, and that fire mages will kidnap misbehaving children and turn them into big ants.

[sleepyhead]

Gemmed are not slaves. I had a character who was gemmed and enslaved, and the Oash Lord who owned my PC was told to go back on the slave bit or I'd be stored.

[Dar]

A gemmed slave is a horrible idea. The owner is responsible for everything you do. Oh, did my slave just burn down half the city quarter? Ummmh ... oops?

A templar can call Gemmed a 'tool'. A noble might do that. To everyone else, they are the gemmed. Their own type of caste. One can be a gemmed and 'not' a citizen. But they do become immediately subservient to the Templarate. Due to the simple fact that they can die at any moment by a mere whim of any templar, regardless of where they are.

[Saiseiki]

Without going into IC detail, I can tell you that as of two IC years ago, the perspective from many in IC authority was that all Gemmed "belong" to the Templarate (and previous to that as well; it was NOT just a reflection of the moment, heading into the Big Bash).  Reading Hestia's answer is actually quite encouraging, and I'm glad for this topic showing up here.

[Hestia]

I don't think there is a question or concern about it being hard for gemmed. It should be hard the 3rd hardest rol, behind sorc and psi. The question is, I'm looking at you staff, Are gemmed to be considered slaves of allanak via RP, or dangerous collared citizens?

Gemmed have never been considered "slaves" of Allanak, within the actual heirarchy of Allanak.

Your non-Allanaki tribal, or Northerner, or Luir's-based citizen might PERCEIVE it otherwise, and that's entirely up to you to RP how your character might perceive it.  But for citizens of Allanak, it's pretty much a given that the gemmed are not slaves.

[Iiyola]

Without going into IC detail, I can tell you that as of two IC years ago, the perspective from many in IC authority was that all Gemmed "belong" to the Templarate (and previous to that as well; it was NOT just a reflection of the moment, heading into the Big Bash).

They're sometimes certainly still treated that way....,

[SmashedTregil]

Without going into IC detail, I can tell you that as of two IC years ago, the perspective from many in IC authority was that all Gemmed "belong" to the Templarate (and previous to that as well; it was NOT just a reflection of the moment, heading into the Big Bash).

They're sometimes certainly still treated that way....,

By whom?

How would you treat a gemmed as a slave? Could you come up with an example?

[Delirium]

The Templarate and the Nobility playing tug of war over resources (gemmed) makes sense and is thematic. Being a resource doesn't mean that you're viewed as or treated as a slave. Keep in mind, you're not innately valuable just because you're a resource. Value is tied to what you can do for the people who decide on things like value. You're a disposable tool at the service of the Greater Good (i.e. the continuing function of Allanak as a city-state). How others view the gemmed, in or outside the city, is up for interpretation. How gemmed view themselves is up for interpretation. Functionally, however, both IC and OOC, they are not slaves.

Calling gemmed magickers "slaves" should get people scoffed at by most (and arguably, especially, those who were once slaves, themselves). Slaves are broken to and utterly reliant on their master's will. Gemmed are still citizens, however marginalized, with freedoms slaves are denied. Conflating forced citizenship with slavery would be almost laughable to most. Yes, you serve the Highlord, or else, but you still carry money and decide between options on what do to with your day or your life.

Yes, the gemmed are more concretely bound to their citizenship and service of Allanak than any mundane person, but they're not slaves. Calling them slaves may seem a valid tactic on the surface, but if you dig deeper, it seems to rely on modern notions that freedom is good and slavery is bad (which it is, it's horrible, but IN THIS SETTING, it is not widely viewed as such). It seems to be designed to invoke a sympathetic reaction. In a rogue witch, it might, but to mundanes, it arguably should not. Gemmed are magickers. They're monsters. And now Allanak has them as a resource at its disposal. Yes, there are similarities that can be drawn, as the gem is worn in the same location as a collar, and they're ultimately subservient to Allanak whether they want it or not, but it's not remotely a direct 1:1 comparison to being an actual slave.

Gemmed get to live in a city. They get to carry money. They get a community of others like themselves. They get to carve out a life, however marginalized. They have opportunities to work for the rich and powerful, or to remain within their Quarter and live a simpler, quieter life. Being gemmed offers the freedom of being a mage and participating in Allanaki society without having to constantly hide who you are and fear discovery and execution. Of course, the drawback is that everyone knows you're a mage, and so you're treated like one.

That is NOT slavery, that is a marginalized population. Allanaki would revolt if gemmed were treated like regular citizens. Magick is powerful, and most mundanes resent or fear that. Now how would they react if they were treated as equals and not as the boogeymen they're made out to be?

As to the benefits of freedom over slavery, in a world like Zalanthas, let's take a hard look at what the lives of most ex-slaves look like: full of hardship, constant danger, and frequent poverty. It's valid that some prefer that ("freedom or death!") but it's far from the accepted norm. Most people, when presented with a choice between living or dying, would chose life, every time. A gemmed may be a gemmed, but at least they're alive.

Edit, somewhat of a derail, but it seems to crop up a good bit:

I feel like a lot of the time, staff & player focus on black & white views, and forget that the strength of storytelling in Armageddon is found in the shades of grey. Nuance, duality, and conflict are what breathe life into any story. You need the core concept for those three things to be work, though. The core concept is, presently, that magick is feared, due to the power it represents. That doesn't mean that everyone has to respond in a cookie cutter way, or that if they color outside the lines, it's automatically bad. It means that they're coloring outside the lines: so why are they doing that? What's motivating them? This doesn't make them by default a bad roleplayer, it means they're deviating from the norm. They should suffer the consequences of doing so. It is on the rest of the gameworld to respond appropriately to those people, so the narrative isn't broken. That is where, I think, we most often fail. I suspect one of the main reasons for failure to respond appropriately to magick is that not only is it the ultimate trump card in many cases, but currently, it's everywhere. The number of secret and rogue magickers vs mundanes can border on ridiculous.

[X-D]

The issue Delirium, Is current play. Let us look at the first part of the help file for gemmed.

Allanak's Elementalist Quarter is home to the gemmed: elementalists who bear a dull black gem fastened around their throats. These elementalists are said to be bound to the Highlord’s will through these devices and by extension the Templars of His city. This binding is proclaimed to render them "safe" or tolerable and by the letter of the Highlord’s law they are permitted to live and operate in the city like any other free citizen.

Key point being in red. There are other help files which validate that along with history's I believe.

Now, around 15 years ago and beyond. The case was that a mage would come to a templar and ask for a gem (still happens) And if they were caught INSIDE the city or one of the farming villages they were usually given the option to get a gem to live or work or trade inside allanak or pay a fine and be kicked out. With a warning that next time would be gem or die. Or possibly a bigger fine...depended on the templar of course.

THIS IS NOT THE CASE IN PLAY any more. Now templars actively hunt mages outside the city if possible to gem them and the only option is gem or die, inside or outside the city. This, by definition is a form of enslavement.  I have heard MANY templars in the last 15 years, both player and staff run say "rogue mages, even outside the city must be gemmed or killed." Even if they never enter or bother anybody from Allanak.

Docs and history might say Not a slave, Actual play does not back that up.

Hell, even in that section it says "bound to the highlord and by extension, templars." If this is forced with no choice but to die, that is slavery...especially when they hunt them just to do so.

It is amusing that people only "know" Of one style of slavery. But Most slaves in history actually were of the "slave class" Where even entire countries could be enslaved (happens even now). In which case the slaves were "slaves of the state". (which gemmed indeed are) Like the Helots, Though perhaps the spartans treated the Helots both better and worse then gemmed. The Helots mostly had to fend for themselves, But could be killed by the ruling class at any time for any reason. But Hey, least the Helots could actually earn enough money to buy freedom...Something a gemmed cannot do.

[Narf]

Pish posh, gemmed aren't slaves.

Slaves get free room and board.

[Hauwke]

Pish posh, gemmed aren't slaves.

Slaves get free room and board.

You are right, the gemmed are worse than slaves. They aren't even provided for.